3 ms·

>... and bury the fact that the majority of the shooters are on SSRI's and a host of other medication. Can you please cite a source for this? >It's because wh

>... and bury the fact that the majority of the shooters are on SSRI's and a host of other medication. Can you please cite a source for this? >It's because when you peek behind the curtain, you find they're just a form of culturally acceptable medicine men. "Here, take these pills and it will solve all your issues! No we don't have any idea what 'chemical imbalance' is happening, or even if it's happening, but that's beside the point! Do not question the great and mighty Oz!" This is an incredibly broad blanket generalization that is not accurate.

yamtaddle 4y ago
> Can you please cite a source for this? Besides, even if true, it seems a lot like "people on blood pressure medication disproportionately likely to have heart attacks". Like... duh? That doesn't (necessarily!) mean the medicine's not helping.
bjt2n3904 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
  - jjulius 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- jjulius 4y ago
  >Sounds like "sources" serve two purposes: 1) validate what people already want to hear... "Sounds like" and "is" are two different things. I'm actually quite open-minded and happy to be shown that that is actually the case. I have no opinion one way or another whether or not it is, but it's quite a tall claim and I'm simply curious as to it's accuracy. Knowing whether or not it's true would absolutely help to improve my understanding of that issue. >... and 2) provide a road block for opposing arguments to prevent having to discuss them. See above, regarding open-mindedness. Data's data - if your claim is right, your claim is right. >No, I won't provide "sources". Alrighty then, enjoy your day.
- notch898b 4y ago
  [flagged]